stundie wrote:This is pathetic!! lolThe photo shows smoke not fires, if the fires were so intense, then post a photo of these intense fires and not some photo taken from taken a few miles away across the other side of the river and not showing any fires.

Do you mean like this one?

ProfWag wrote:Additionally, WTC 7 and the other buildings are't comparable because WTC 7 was not being treated for a fire.

stundie wrote:I knew you would come up with an excuse for why WTC 7 can't be compared to any other high rise building fires. lol

Yes, and it's a pretty good excuse.

ProfWag wrote:As for your free fall claim, I'd like to see your evidence for that statement.

stundie wrote:Err!! It's not my claim, it from your bible the NIST report.

Sorry, this is either ignorance or a lie. Here is the NTSB's report on WTC7:http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdfPlease refer to page 45 of this report which states (after some math): "...Thus, the average time for the upper 18 stories to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time."As such, I think you are the one that really needs a new drawing board.

As for the rest of your statements, Edx does a pretty thorough job of answering your bogus claims.

+Concrete reinforced,+The fires were fought + Fireproofing was not dislodged + Structural engineers at the time were still worried it was at risk of a "pancake structural collapse" so the fire department pulled all their firefighters out.

* Could you source where it was concrete reinforced Edx?? Because as far as I'm aware, the building frame was steel with steel and concrete floors. * The fireproofing would probably have been redundant and long passed the duration it was rated for. Unless there are fireproofing materials that can withstand fire for 18 hours??* The fires were fought, but it still burned for much longer that the WTC. * After 11 hours, they thought it was at risk from collapsing and rightly pulled out the firemen and fought the fire externally.

The building still didn't collapse.

Edx wrote:+++ And btw, none of these had long span floor trusses.

There was lots of difference between these and other buildings, shall we point out every difference??

* My bad, I thought it was steel framed but you are correct. * My bad, so it only partially collapsed but other than that, there was no collapse inside the building. * Fireproofing had a 2 hour fire resistant rating and the fire burned for 17 hours.

I stated that this was different because it was a steel and concrete building but it still didn't collapse.

Edx wrote:

Notice a pattern here about steel framed buildings yet??

I notice a pattern of misrepresentation, but I knew about all these classic truther anecdotes before and yet they have the cheek to be picky about the Verinage demolition which disprove most about all their claims.

Classic truther anecdotes?? lol

They are the nearest comparators we have although ProfWag says we can't use any of them! lol

There is no misrepresentation and I admit I may have had a got a few facts wrong but the point is they all burned for longer, much longer than the fireproofing was rated for and didn't collapse, let alone at free fall speeds.

And a for being picky about the Verinage collapse, I'm not being picky but does that show us a much smaller portion crushing a much larger one as we are led to believe how WTC 1 & 2 collapsed? I don't think so.

Edx wrote:

Edx wrote:The Windsor tower didn't collapse completely because it had a concrete core and reinforced floors.

Yeah I know and it wasn't designed to resist a collapse but it did.

Its well known concrete holds up better in fire, steel is well known to perform poorly. btw why does steel require fire protection if its so indestructible?

Who says steel is indestructible?? lol Nice strawman.

The point is that the building overall suffered a small amount of damage and that the NIST say the collapse was inevitable. Some debunkers (not you!) talk about the WTC not being designed to resist a collapse but no building was design that way, yet many survived partial collapses.

Edx wrote: In fact, even wood holds its structural integrity longer in fire did you know that?

Edx wrote:The WTC only had 4inch thick concrete floors, it had no other concrete and it wasn't load bearing.

That is partially incorrect as the floors were load bearing, but only a small percentage of the load as the exterior and core columns did the main job bearing the load.

How is that "partially incorrect"? Did it have more concrete than I said it did? No. Was the concrete load bearing? No. Was the floor system built to withstand the weight of the upper block? No of course not.

Yes, you were right about the 4inch concrete floors but the floors held the load of whatever was on that floor and a small percentage of the towers overall load. Hence you are partially right,

Edx wrote:

was joking whether someone like Richard Gage should use the verinage to prove a demolition instead of an explosive demolition theory.

Well it is true it is much easier to make a much logical argument for demolition that what Gage makes, but for some reason he loves his quiet intense explosives that make loud noises when he wants them to and thermite was used somehow somewhere or something...

Well until you have a coherent theory for how the towers actually collapsed without resorting to pancakes, truss failures, pile drivers and crush down nonsense, then Gage has every right to investigate how he thinks it collapsed regardless of your opinion of him and his theories.

Edx wrote:

So it was a single column as I suggest but what I do not understand is that no other building are built this way?? lol

Your "joke" is that demolition companies should set any building on fire or destroy one column and they will collapse in the same way which will make it cheaper which is not true because you ignore the fact of how buildings are built and how uncontrolled and dangerous it would be. Why are being so intentionally annoying?

Well it would make it much cheaper than rigging it up explosives.....lol

And I'm not ignoring anything?? You claimed that the fires would be uncontrollable and yes they would be but the somehow conclude that the collapse (i'm paraphrasing) would scatter debris in a radius. Would it really send debris flying everywhere like in a demolition or would it just fall down?

What you are doing is trying to pass off the excuse that as the joke states, if you believe that fire can demolish an entire building then it would be employed as a method to demolish buildings. Maybe they might have to get the wrecking ball out and weaken the building a little because after all, it not just fires with the WTC, it's plane damage and fire. It certainly would be quicker and cheaper than rigging a entire building, especially using the time consuming old tech way of running wires through the building.

Edx wrote:

Care to point out what about the design allowed it fail then fall at free fall speeds for 2.5 seconds and continuing onwards at near free fall speeds??

I already explained this, I'm not going to do it again if you want to ignore it.

Oh, so you explained it alright, not realising that your reason is neither scientific or explains it.

According to what I can gather, the internal section was travelling either faster or slower than free fall speed and manage to pull the entire out facade at free fall speeds for 2.5 seconds and then at near free fall speed?

Please expand on how the inner portions fell at faster/slower than free fall speeds to enable the outer facade to fall ar free fall speeds for 2.5 seconds and then at near free fall speed?

I can wait for this one?

Edx wrote:

Yeah why not, I mean large steel structures collapse after about an hour so why not?? lol

Im confused, do you accept that houses will collapse in fire? If you do accept this, then please tell me why demolition companies don't use this method?

Don't be confused, it's the twoofer twap I set up for you to fall in.

I believe houses can collapse in a fire, I've seen it so I accept it.

The reason why demolition companies don't use this method is because it is an uneffective method for destroying an entire structure. A demolition can cut all the loads and support either at once or gradually over a sequence and drop the building in seconds once set up. A fire would reduce the strength of the area in and surrounding the fire but anywhere away from the fire wouldn't be effected by the heat, which would mean the still parts of the building have structural integrity, this is not a problem for a demolition. Another problem is fuel how much do you use? What if you don't use enough? Do you have to put it out and start again. What if there is too much too much how dangerous would that be?

Lets say you had fires on the entire building using the correct amount of fuel and taking all the safety concerns in to account. How would it collapse? As the steel gets hotter, I guess it would weaken gradually causing sagging before it gave way and as the temperature would probably be at different rates considering the different thickness of steels used in every floor, the building would gradually collapse and I do not think it would collapse at free fall or even near free fall, or even in a matter of seconds.

I'm guessing it's for these reason and many others why they don't use fire a method for demolishing. Simply because it is rubbish but that all changed on 9/11 as we have now discovered and considering the times it took for the all 3 towers to collapse and the small amount of fires in relation to the building, we were wrong.

Hence "2 Man and A Match" which belongs to Scecop and my rival company "Matchbox Demolitions" will be setting up and taking

I also believe that a high rise steel building can collapse in a fire, even though I've not seen it yet other than on 9/11.

So do you want to buy shares in our companies?? Twoof fifty a share? lol

Edx wrote:

There are many different types of explosives some which detonate with high pressure and some explosions deflagrate.

That's correct. But bombs that deflagrate are not used to destroy heavy infrastructure. High explosives destroy things by their shock waves.

Do I get points for being correct!!

Edx wrote:

Why no one is injured is simply down to the location of the people in relation to the explosions. If no one has blast injuries, then they probably weren't close enough to the explosion.

And yet you truthers think people can be thrown about by explosives but these explosives didn't rupture their ear drums. As I said before, even a flashbang can tare your ear drums. But these explosives you're talking about are meant to be intense enough to destroy heavy steel.

Well were there reports of people with ruptured ear drums? I'm not aware of the medical records of the people who were injured at the WTC to answer it one way or another, but even if no one reporting ruptured ear drums.

And it's not truther who think that people can be thrown about by an explosion, but the people who reported being thrown about by an explosion. If they didn't have ruptured ear drums then all this suggest is that the explosions was loud enough to rupture them.

Edx wrote:

Thermite doesn't make explosives quieter but if used would make a demolition less like noisy.

It would also make it incapable of flinging steel around. It would also make it incapable of throwing anyone around.

Even if Gage did actually say this, which I highly doubt, then you would be correct.

But do fires fling steel around and people around?? Or do explosives??

Edx wrote:Thermite cannot be used as an explosive since thermite does not explode and as I said before if it could explode and create a shockwave then that would be just as loud.

Well that is true if you ignore the video I posted in which THERMITE is being used as an explosive and cuts steel, so therefore it can explode.

And Gage is obviously a proponent of explosives and thermite so why you would mention this point is beyond me other than taking his thoughts out of context.

Edx wrote:As for your video, I've seen it before. Tell me, how large is that device connected to the steel and whats the ratio of steel vs device and how much thermite did it require?

I do not know how much or how large that device is or the ration or how much thermite was used.

But your premise that thermite can't cut steel is evidently wrong.

Edx wrote:That's the problem in the real world a device like this is totally impractial.

Thats why the "2 Men and a Match" and the "Matchbox" demolition company are starting up??

Whether it is impractical or not is irrelevant to whether it can or can't be done which it can.

You question surrounding the device I can't answer for sure, but I'm sure some clever cloggs could make a smaller more powerful version with the right know how.

Edx wrote:Just imagine a core column with this thing attached to it.

That is if this method was used of course and that some smart arse couldn't building a smaller and more powerful device.

I would also like to point out that although I appear to get ridiculed about not being able to compare buildings that have collapsed, I really don't believe that comparisons can be made with WTCs 1, 2, & 7. I mean, how can you? Buildings are made different, they contain different materials, they have different engineers and architects who design them, the haven't had planes fly into them, they haven't had 2 100-story buildings fall right next to them, etc. So, trying to compare how one building falls with any of the WTCs is really not a good piece of evidence, I don't think anyway...

stundie wrote:The photo shows smoke not fires, if the fires were so intense, then post a photo of these intense fires and not some photo taken from taken a few miles away across the other side of the river and not showing any fires.

Therefore firefighters are liars.

Concerned about the collapse, no mention of fires here!!

Oh you want to pretend no firefighters mentioned fire?

Here's a whole bunch of quotes that talk about fire and damage. I wonder where the goal posts will be moved to now and btw these arent exhastive and you will find no dissenting opinions from any of them anywhere about this either on or after 911.

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldnít lose any more people."- Fire Department Commander - Daniel Nigro

"...Because it really got going, that building Seven, saw it late in the day and like the first Seven floors were on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building. There were pieces of tower two in building Seven and the corners of the building missing and whatnot. But just looking up at it from ground level however many stories -- it was 40 some odd -- you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block."-Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy

"..Yeah, and it was really in disarray. It really was in complete disarray. We never really got an operation going at Seven World Trade Center. "– FDNY Captain Michael Donovan

"At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. ... Later on in the day it was getting close that they were more concerned about seven coming down we had no idea what was going on on the east side we were all on our side on the west side it was pretty clear the wind was blowing from west to east believe remember later on in the day as we were waiting for seven to come down they kept backing us up vesey almost like full block they were concerned about seven coming down and they kept changing us establishing collapse massa 18 zone and backing us up.– Firefighter Vincent Massa

"Well, they said that's fully involved at this time. This was a fully involved building. I said, all right, they're not coming for us for a while. Now you're trapped in this rubble, and you're trying to get a grasp of an idea of what's going on there." I heard on the handy talky that we are now fighting a 40-story building fully involved- Lieutenant James Mcglynn

"So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too... There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it."

"There was an engine company... right underneath building 7 and it was still burning at the time. They had a hose in operation, but you could tell there was no pressure. It was barely making it across the street."– Capt. Chris Boyle

The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing."– FDNY Chief Frank Fellini

I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run.- Nick Visconti

"7 World Trade Center? I couldn’t even watch that. I said that’s enough. I refused to watch that. I took R-and-R. I said you guys can watch that one "– Battalion Chief Frank Vallebuona

"...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."- Deputy Chief Peter Hayden

As a general summary they talk of it bulging, leaning, groaning and creaking and reports of things crackling, and falling. They describe it being heavily damaged and many described the vast damage to the south side such as Chris Boyle for example describing how he was standing right next to it where he saw a huge gaping hole about 1/3 the size of the building. He certainly not the only one to describe such huge damage. They talk about uncontainable fully involved raging fires and they say they all believed it would collapse or was in danger of collapse and that they knew that hours before it actually did.

And btw you call this just smoke, but smoke has to come from somewhere and if you watch the videos you can see it POURING out of WTC7. Anyway the main point is that you are calling these firefighters liars if you disagree.

stundie wrote:Are you calling these firefighters liars?? HOW VERY DARE YOU?? THESE GUYS ARE HEROS!! Just jesting of course.........lol

Get it right Stundie, YOU'RE calling them liars, not ProfWag

Aside from 1 single firefighter, John Schroeder, who had post traumatic stress and doesnt even know that the South tower fell first, no FDNY firefighter believes the nonsense you claim they do. You dont even care about contacting them to ask them if they sustained any blast injuries or if they really believe there were bombs in the towers. You dont even care that none of them back up a single thing you claim about WTC7 and dozens and dozens say the opposite with no dissenting opinions from any of them in nearly a decade. I dont see any truthers attacking the FDNY and asking why they dont tell the truth about Building 7.

stundie wrote: Could you source where it was concrete reinforced Edx?? Because as far as I'm aware, the building frame was steel with steel and concrete floors.

"The building has three enclosed stairways of concrete masonry construction.... The elevator shaftsare constructed of concrete and masonry and extend from the first floor or lower levels to thehighest floor served by the individual elevator banks.... undersevere fire exposures, and fissures developed in the reinforced concrete floor assemblies in manyplaces"

* The fires were fought, but it still burned for much longer that the WTC.

* After 11 hours, they thought it was at risk from collapsing and rightly pulled out the firemen and fought the fire externally.

The building still didn't collapse.

So why did they say it might "PANCAKE COLLAPSE" if its impossible for such a building to collapse from fire like you claim? Could it be that structural engineers have understood progressive collapses has been an issue for a long time?

Edx wrote:+++ And btw, none of these had long span floor trusses.

There was lots of difference between these and other buildings, shall we point out every difference??

The long span floor trusses was the key reason why WTC7 collapsed, but I know you dont care about that so lets move on.

You really need to learn what it means for a building to be concrete reinforced. Its the concrete that makes the structure stronger, all you do is give examples of buildings that have been steel reinforced with concrete which is well known to hold up the best in fires.

Here's an interesting quote I found about UK Building Codes and its relationship to the Twin Towers.

"The World Trade Center could not have been built in the United Kingdom," insists Ed Galea director of the Fire Safety Engineering Group at the University of Greenwich in London. "The number of the staircases would have been insufficient. The nature of those staircases would not have met our requirements. We would have required concrete. You would have also needed lobbies on each floor to protect staircases from smoke. Also, the connections between the floor joists and upright columns would've been much more robust. It's all part of the U.K. building code." It's unlikely that the WTC could have been constructed in Japan either. "Buildings one hundred meters or higher are framed in reinforced concrete rather than steel," Tokyo structural engineer Masahiko Fukasawa says.

I stated that this was different because it was a steel and concrete building but it still didn't collapse.

The concrete held up because it was concrete and the steel structure that was not reinforced collapsed. That is what I have been telling you. Concrete holds up better that steel. Steel does not perform well in fires.

There is no misrepresentation

You can't use any of them as examples of steel frame structures that didn't collapse when they are reinforced with concrete and in the Windsor tower had a concrete core and the steel that wasn't reinforced actually DID collapse. its misrepresenting the design of the towers by leaving out the fact that concrete is a much more fire resilient building material and that the WTC towers had no load bearing concrete whatsoever.

and I admit I may have had a got a few facts wrong but the point is they all burned for longer, much longer than the fireproofing was rated for and didn't collapse, let alone at free fall speeds.

I asked you why verinage collapses are also "near free fall speeds" and of you ignored it, presumably you agree there was resistance there as well.

And a for being picky about the Verinage collapse, I'm not being picky but does that show us a much smaller portion crushing a much larger one as we are led to believe how WTC 1 & 2 collapsed? I don't think so.

Why not? That's exactly what we see, especially in the last example of that video. How many floors would you say is crushing the rest of the building in that example? Please do count it for us.

Edx wrote:Because it was a concretereinforced building with a concretecore and the steel structrue that did not have any load bearing concrete collapsed. How you think this example proves your position that steel frame buildings dont collapse from fire is beyond me.

Its well known concrete holds up better in fire, steel is well known to perform poorly. btw why does steel require fire protection if its so indestructible?

Who says steel is indestructible?? lol Nice strawman.

You guys imply that steel is indestructible by your arguments, the same way that by extension the firefighters have to be lying if what you say is true but you dont want to admit you believe they are lying as its bad PR.

So okay, what do you think will happen when steel heats up to the point where it cant hold its load anymore? Seriously, you tell me. The floors give way, or in the case of the WTC sags and pulls in on the perimeter columns, the top block then falls onto the floor system below. The load bearing connections are no longer connected to the top block to resist it and you have the entire weight of the upper block falling on the floor system. You tell me... what you think will happen?

Edx wrote: In fact, even wood holds its structural integrity longer in fire did you know that?

Yes, you were right about the 4inch concrete floors but the floors held the load of whatever was on that floor and a small percentage of the towers overall load. Hence you are partially right,

This is the floor system you are talking about that you believe can resist a weight that is relevant to this discussion.

Edx wrote:Well it is true it is much easier to make a much logical argument for demolition that what Gage makes, but for some reason he loves his quiet intense explosives that make loud noises when he wants them to and thermite was used somehow somewhere or something...

Well until you have a coherent theory for how the towers actually collapsed without resorting to pancakes, truss failures, pile drivers and crush down nonsense, then Gage has every right to investigate how he thinks it collapsed regardless of your opinion of him and his theories.

We do have a coherent theory, but of course you dont accept that because you are incompetent so lets turn it around. Since Gage doesnt have a coherent theory - at all - then are we logically allowed to speculate about space beams or mini nukes or no planes?

Well it would make it much cheaper than rigging it up explosives.....lol

1. VERY VERY DANGEROUS especially with high rises. 2. Not all buildings will work as I've already explained.

It would also be cheaper to set a house on fire to demolish it than to get construction equipment in and knock it/tare it down, but they don't do this because its dangerous. But that is just a house that only has a few floors at most, we're talking about large high rises in populated areas. That multiples the danger to absurd levels. Controlled demolitions HAVE to be "controlled", that's why they don't use it.

Apparently this is too difficult for you to grasp.

Would it really send debris flying everywhere like in a demolition or would it just fall down?

That's what happened with WTC1 and 2 didn't it? Or do you somehow deny that happened? Imagine if those verinage collapses were 100 stories high the debris that was being pushed out the collapse front would have a LOT further to travel and if it was a larger building (such as a size of a city block) this means a lot of heavy material is going to be falling down in a wise radius.

Oh, so you explained it alright, not realising that your reason is neither scientific or explains it.

According to what I can gather, the internal section was travelling either faster or slower than free fall speed and manage to pull the entire out facade at free fall speeds for 2.5 seconds and then at near free fall speed?

I gave you the example of a car being attached to another car with one of them being pushed off a cliff. For a moment the second car would accelerate faster than free fall before levelling out because it is being pulled by the second one. I dont understand why you dont get that. The internal collapses in 7 which we cant see fall is pulling down on the external facade faster than it would fall on its own, very quickly it hits more resistance. The collapse of 7 shows significant resistance.

Don't be confused, it's the twoofer twap I set up for you to fall in.

I believe houses can collapse in a fire, I've seen it so I accept it.

The reason why demolition companies don't use this method is because it is an ineffective method for destroying an entire structure. A demolition can cut all the loads and support either at once or gradually over a sequence and drop the building in seconds once set up.

Congratulations, now you know another reason why fire is not a effective method for demolition.

What if there is too much too much how dangerous would that be?

I love it when you debunk yourself. I should go nominate you for your own stundie award on the JREF again.

Lets say you had fires on the entire building using the correct amount of fuel and taking all the safety concerns in to account. How would it collapse? As the steel gets hotter, I guess it would weaken gradually causing sagging before it gave way and as the temperature would probably be at different rates considering the different thickness of steels used in every floor, the building would gradually collapse and I do not think it would collapse at free fall or even near free fall, or even in a matter of seconds.

How did you get to "gradually collapse"? If the load bearing connections are gone and the upper block is falling on the floor system what is going to happen? Go look at the verinage collapses again to refresh your memory.

I'm guessing it's for these reason and many others why they don't use fire a method for demolishing. Simply because it is rubbish but that all changed on 9/11 as we have now discovered and considering the times it took for the all 3 towers to collapse and the small amount of fires in relation to the building, we were wrong.

I like how you started talking about houses then started talking about steel frame high rises. You said that a house will collapse from fire, therefore by your logic its cheaper to use fire when demolition companies destroy them. So then, why dont they use that?

Hence "2 Man and A Match" which belongs to Scecop and my rival company "Matchbox Demolitions" will be setting up and taking

So then, you must accept that demolition companies should be using fire to demolish houses, right?

Edx wrote:That's correct. But bombs that deflagrate are not used to destroy heavy infrastructure. High explosives destroy things by their shock waves.

Do I get points for being correct!!

No since you want your low order explosives (the ones that deflagrate) to help you explain heavy steel flinging and buildings being "pulverised".

Well were there reports of people with ruptured ear drums?

No, that's the point.

I'm not aware of the medical records of the people who were injured at the WTC to answer it one way or another, but even if no one reporting ruptured ear drums.

First of all truthers so so damn lazy and here is another example of why. You say you dont know about the medical reports and yet you have peoples names and identities for years. You guys claim Barry Jennings experienced a massive explosion from a bomb in WTC7 and yet even though he did an interview afterwards with his hearing apparently intact no truther has ever tried to contact these guys to find out if they had any blast injuries.

And it's not truther who think that people can be thrown about by an explosion, but the people who reported being thrown about by an explosion. If they didn't have ruptured ear drums then all this suggest is that the explosions was loud enough to rupture them.

1. People could have heard an explosion sound and the building rocked which made them fall over. Barry Jennings and Michael Hess experienced the collapse of the towers while he was inside Building 7 for example, but he didn't experience a bomb. Its why my other example I gave you before said someone thought he experienced a bomb but that later realised it was the South tower collapsing. 2. If the bomb was strong enough to throw them around, it will be strong enough to rip their ear drums. 3. If the bomb was too weak to rupture ear drums then it was definitely too weak to take out any critical parts of the building. ie. useless.

Edx wrote:

Thermite doesn't make explosives quieter but if used would make a demolition less like noisy.

It would also make it incapable of flinging steel around. It would also make it incapable of throwing anyone around.

Even if Gage did actually say this, which I highly doubt, then you would be correct.

We've been over this. Both you and he have said exactly this.

But do fires fling steel around and people around?? Or do explosives??

Pieces of collapsing sky scraper will probably wobble a building a little bit I would have thought.

Edx wrote:Thermite cannot be used as an explosive since thermite does not explode and as I said before if it could explode and create a shockwave then that would be just as loud.

Well that is true if you ignore the video I posted in which THERMITE is being used as an explosive and cuts steel, so therefore it can explode.

1. Like I asked you the last time you said this is for you to tell me just how much thermite was used to cut that steel and what the ratio of device is to the steel they used.

Its a very thin piece with a huge device attached to it . In the real world it would be completely impractical to use such a method which is why demolition companies don't and why no truther has been able to show that thermite, thermate or nano thermite can do anythng relevant to the steel. Remember when Steven Jones said that if you painted on nano thermite onto steel it turns into a "high explosive"? What a laugh riot that was when Ventura then played video of nano thermite painted on steel which was set on fire and nothing exploded, poor Steven, unintentionally disproven by a knucklehead like Ventura.

2. That wouldnt be able to throw steel around, sorry.

And Gage is obviously a proponent of explosives and thermite so why you would mention this point is beyond me other than taking his thoughts out of context.

You feign ignorance of my point even though Ive explained it many times.

Gage says explosives threw heavy material away from the building, pulverised it and so on. He is describing a high order explosives that creates a blast wave to rip through infrastructure.

Thermite doesn't explode it deflagrates, it can melt stuff but it doesn't explode. If thermite could explode with enough power to fling heavy steel around therefore it would still be just as loud.

Gage thinks that thermite makes it quieter in order to explain why we dont hear explosive detonations when the building collapsed.

Edx wrote:As for your video, I've seen it before. Tell me, how large is that device connected to the steel and whats the ratio of steel vs device and how much thermite did it require?

I do not know how much or how large that device is or the ration or how much thermite was used.

But your premise that thermite can't cut steel is evidently wrong.

I'lll tell you then. Its clearly a small, thin piece of steel. I didnt say thermite couldn't cut steel I said it couldnt cut steel beams the way truther say it can.

Please explain why no one found such enormous devices like this in the rubble pile or how they were able to install such enormous devices with no one looking? Also, you have the issue of it needing to be even larger than this because with the device you are taking about here the thermite doesn't need to just get through half an inch of steel it needs to get through something as large as a core column which would mean the thermite would have to remain in contact long enough to do any damage. This is what Im saying, truthers simply cannot show this is possible and why people like Steven Jones have gone from saying they used painted on nano thermite to it just being matches or fuses for lighting traiditonal explosives like C4.

Whether it is impractical or not is irrelevant to whether it can or can't be done which it can.

Its not possible to do a demolition in this way, thats the point.

That is if this method was used of course and that some smart arse couldn't building a smaller and more powerful device.

[/quote]

How? You still have the problem with the fact that thermite doesn't work well cutting horizontally through steel, if you have a lot surrounding it it still does little more than warm it, they did that experiment as well. The ONLY reason the devise in your experiment works is that the device is large enough to propel sufficient amounts of thermite onto a thin piece of steel so that it can cut it. In a real world demolition such device would have to multiple times bigger based on the size of the steel column it was trying to cut. Saying such a device is impractical is being nice, its impossible to have the same device scaled up.

stundie wrote:Well until you have a coherent theory for how the towers actually collapsed without resorting to pancakes, truss failures, pile drivers and crush down nonsense, then Gage has every right to investigate how he thinks it collapsed regardless of your opinion of him and his theories.

I'm sorry, but what's wrong with pancakes? No, seriously... The pancake collapse is exactly what I saw. What did you see? Why is FEMA's version of what happened not taken seriously by you (or Scepcop or Gage for that matter)?Have ANY of you even looked at it? I can provide the link if you or anyone else would like.

Just to bring us back on topic, which is Winston being a consultant to Mr Gage for an upcoming debate. I advised Winston not to take the job. I had a few exchanges with Winston back in mid-2009 about the controlled demolition theory. It seems that both Winston and Gage would be exposed as laughing stocks if they go through with this debate.

Here is a timeline that I compiled from the NIST report of 9/11 and other sources. I think it illustrates very well that the collapses of WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 were gradual collapses due to fire and not an instantaneous collapse that would be characteristic of demolition. Winston, make sure you forward this to Mr Gage before it is too late.

8:46am--American Airlines 11 crashed into the North Tower.9:03 -- United Airlines 175 crashed into the South Tower.9:37--A 9-1-1 call from on occupant trapped on the 105th floor of the south tower describes floors beneath him collapsing. This was confirmed by exterior observations by the NYPD avaiation unit.9:52-- NYPD aviation unit reports: "large pieces may be falling from the top of WTC 2[The south tower]. Large pieces are hanging up there". NYPD issues orders to evacuate.9:59-- South Tower collapses10:20--Aviation Unit reports that North Tower "the top of the tower might be leaning."10:21--Aviation Unit reports that North Tower "is buckling on the southwest corner and leaning to the south" [an asymetrical deterioration. Didn't Gates say that lack of asymetrical collapse was the reason why explosives might have been used. Doesn't he say that he would have expected asymetrical collapse?] 10:27--Aviation Unit reports that "the roof is going to come down very shortly."10:28--North Tower collapses. Debris causes severe damage to surrounding structures including WTC 7, igniting several fires that would burn out of control.2:00pm--Firefighters notice a bulge developing on the Southwest corner of WTC 7 between 10-13th floors.3:30--The condition of WTC 7 deteriorates to the point where rescue and recovery operations are halted and crews are evacuated from the area.5:20-- WTC 7 collapses.

What does this mean? It means that a mere 35 minutes after impact of the south tower, occupants and the authorities were already observing deterioration of the building's structure in the form of collapsed floors. Roughly 50 minutes after impact, authorities were observing failures on the exterior of the south tower. Then about 55 minutes after impact, the south tower collapses. This documents a gradual increase in structural failure since the impact that resulted in the systemic failure that caused the total collapse of the structure. Which would be consistent with the theory of a fire-assissted collapse. Demolitions don't operate this way (with the building being structurally sound until charges are detonated, and then, immediately collapsing)

In the north tower, it's the same way. 7-8 minutes before collapse, authorities are observing gradual deterioration in the buildings structure.

And it gets worse for WTC 7. Fires burn out of control for about 3.5 hours before the bulge is noticed by firemen. Isn't this how long that Dr Gates claims steel buildings are rated for against fire? An hour an a half later (5 hrs total from impact and ignition of the fires) the firemen halt their operations and evacuate. An additional two hours later, the building collapses. In other words, WTC 7 had fires burning out of control for 7 HOURS! How long does Dr Gates think a structure should be rated for against fire? I hear three or four hours in his lecture, but WTC 7 was burning for twice as long.

At any rate, this was clearly NOT a collapse at free fall speed. At free fall speed, it would take 9s for the twin towers to collapse when it was actually closer to 15s. At free fall speed, it would take WTC7 6 seconds to collapse. But it was more like 14s. I had sent Winson this video back in May 2009:

It’s the collapse of WTC 7 from various different angles. At time marker 1:14, you see definite movement as the penthouse begins to collapse. The rest of the structure begins to collapse at 1:22. You can also catch this at different angles at 2:35 and 3:02. My question has been why AE911Truth would cut out the first 8 seconds of the collapse and only present the last six? I haven’t received an answer, and to date, they are still making the same claim.

Now, we have tons of video and eyewitness testimony as well as forensics and extensive testing to support the fire assisted collapse theory. The volume of this evidence can’t be overstated.

There is no evidence in support of the demolition theory. And when I say “no evidence” I mean: zero, ziltch, nada! There were no traces of explosives found at ground zero for one thing. And if thermite was going to be used, you would need tons of it. Is there any evidence of such a quantity of thermite being purchased or procured? Where are the receipts? Where are the eye witnesses that will testify to seeing some mysterious and strange people setting charges and running wires through the towers. Typical demolitions require days to prepare for. Somebody had to have noticed something if this was done at the WTC. And if demolishing the towers was the goal, than why would you need to fly planes into them?

This is one thing I would suggest for Winston and Gage. Get some evidence.

There is evidence of controlled demolition. Thermite residue, molten metal, 10 characteristics, etc. That is scientific hard evidence. Denying it doesn't make it go away.

Fires cannot explain the collapse of WTC7. We've already been over that. Your words cannot make fire the explanation. Cause it cannot. Pure and simple. No way around it.

A fire collapse does not fall at that speed, free fall or not. It's never happened, and cannot happened.

If such were possible, then the demolition company would be out of business. I could just spend a few hours starting a fire instead of rigging explosives for months.

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

The fires in the other were bigger in comparison to the size of the buildings and burned for longer even though the fires were being fought.

So it's not a good excuse, it's a piss poor attempt at debunking. lol

ProfWag wrote:Sorry, this is either ignorance or a lie.

Considering you claim to be a professor, this OFSTED inspector is disappointed in you.

The only person lying or ignorant is you Professor. Let me explain........

You quoted this..

ProfWag wrote:Here is the NTSB's report on WTC7:http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdfPlease refer to page 45 of this report which states (after some math): "...Thus, the average time for the upper 18 stories to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time."

Do you know what you are talking about here?? lol

For a start, the upper 18 stories are not the entire building, just a 18 stories. lol

Now let the OFSTED inspector show you in the hope you are not embarrassed and quote the context of your cherry picked quote. The NIST FAQ I posted summarises page 45 of the report and here is what it actually says.

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse: * Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall). * Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall) * Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

So the analysis that show the 40% longer descent time was.........Stage 1.

During stage 2, it fell at........free fall speeds.

The 18 floors you picked are stage 1 and if you read the PDF....you would have realised this. lol

So what was you saying about me lying and being ignorant?? hahahahahahahahaha!!

The moral of the story, be careful who you test! lol

ProfWag wrote:As such, I think you are the one that really needs a new drawing board.

No, my drawings look fine thanks.

ProfWag wrote:As for the rest of your statements, Edx does a pretty thorough job of answering your bogus claims.

Well that is in your bias opinion, but you are not doing a very good job are you professor?? lol

Well I'm sorry to disappoint you but I've already shown you a thermite charge cutting steel and I believe it was used to cut steel on rail tracks, but I could be wrong.

Just because Jesse doesn't have a method for cutting the steel doesn't mean it couldn't be achieved.

ProfWag wrote:I would also like to point out that although I appear to get ridiculed about not being able to compare buildings that have collapsed, I really don't believe that comparisons can be made with WTCs 1, 2, & 7. I mean, how can you? Buildings are made different, they contain different materials, they have different engineers and architects who design them, the haven't had planes fly into them, they haven't had 2 100-story buildings fall right next to them, etc. So, trying to compare how one building falls with any of the WTCs is really not a good piece of evidence, I don't think anyway...

And I thought you were a professor?? lol

You see this is what you have reduced the conversation down too....lol First I couldn't use the WTC 1 & 2 and now I can't use WTC 7 as I did predicted.

Rather than address the points, you do not want to answer them because it shows your theory for what it is, a bit of a joke! So you move the goal posts and create reasons not to look because it challenges what you personally believe to be true.

If you do not like the comparators, then fair enough but don't comment and complain that mine are poor when you are absolutely broke and destitute and are brining nothing to the debate other than your opinions and cognitive dissonance, because lets be honest, they are worth about the same as the shares in my Matchbox Demolition company.

And since aluminum melts at only 550-660 C, it is no suprise to anyone that there was molten metal at ground zero.

10 characteristics, etc.

Oh, one of them being that only controlled demolitions produce pyroclastic flows? LOL that's wrong. Do we need to discuss the others.

That is scientific hard evidence. Denying it doesn't make it go away

.

Truthers have been denying hard evidence for almost 9 years without contributing anything of their own. You can start aquiring some by finding witnesses, asking them questions instead of relying on a literal interpretation of hyperbole, and following leads. That would be a good place to start, and as Gage's consultant, I'd suggest that you'd advise him of this.

Fires cannot explain the collapse of WTC7

.

Yes they can. Firemen on the scene were so concerned about the fires that they predicted a collapse, halted operations, and evacuated from the area.

Your words cannot make fire the explanation. Cause it cannot. Pure and simple. No way around it.

Why is that? Because you say so? It's interesting to me that 100's of different experts run tests by simulating office fires and watching how steel behaves but we're suppose to believe you when you have no evidence?

A fire collapse does not fall at that speed, free fall or not. It's never happened, and cannot happened.

Tell me why.

If such were possible, then the demolition company would be out of business. I could just spend a few hours starting a fire instead of rigging explosives for months.

Yeah, funny thing about that. That it takes so long to rig explosives but nobody notices. You'd think at least one of at least thousands of employees in downtown Manhattan would have noticed something.

What about the timeline I sent to you a few times over the past year. Anything in that timeline suggests that explosives were used? No it doesn't.